Review Guidelines

The International Journal of Journalism and Mass Communication (IJJMC) is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to publishing original research in journalism, media studies, digital communication, and allied disciplines. The journal follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality, originality, and methodological rigor. IJJMC adheres to internationally accepted publication standards and ethical guidelines to maintain transparency, fairness, confidentiality, and objectivity in the editorial and peer-review process.

Review Process: Peer Review Model

IJJMC follows a Double-Blind Peer Review System in which:

  • The identity of authors is concealed from reviewers.

  • The identity of reviewers is concealed from authors.

  • Manuscripts are reviewed solely on academic merit.

  • Editors ensure that no conflict of interest exists between reviewers and authors.

All submissions are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board members to determine:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Originality and scholarly contribution

  • Compliance with submission guidelines

  • Academic writing quality

  • Ethical compliance

Manuscripts that do not meet basic scholarly or ethical standards may be desk rejected without external review.

Plagiarism and Similarity Policy

All manuscripts submitted to IJJMC undergo plagiarism screening using Turnitin or equivalent plagiarism-detection software. IJJMC follows the UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018 and international publication ethics standards.

Acceptable Similarity Limit

  • Maximum acceptable similarity index: 10%

Excluded Content

The similarity index excludes:

  • Properly cited quotations

  • References and bibliography

  • Tables of contents

  • Acknowledgements

  • Standard terminology

  • Laws and official documents

  • Mathematical equations and symbols

  • Common knowledge expressions

  • Coincidental similarities up to 14 consecutive words

Manuscripts exceeding the permissible similarity limit will be returned to authors for revision. If similarity remains above acceptable limits after revision, the manuscript will be rejected.

Peer Review Procedure 

The peer review process consists of two stages.

Stage 1: Editorial Review

During this stage, manuscripts are evaluated for:

  • Journal scope alignment

  • Manuscript structure

  • Formatting compliance

  • Citation style

  • Language clarity

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are forwarded for external peer review.

Stage 2: External Peer Review

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty

  • Significance of research

  • Literature review adequacy

  • Conceptual and theoretical framework

  • Research methodology

  • Data analysis

  • Interpretation of results

  • Contribution to the field

  • Practical or policy implications

  • Clarity of presentation

Reviewers provide detailed comments and recommendations.

Review Timeline

The typical review timeline is:

Stage Duration
Initial Editorial Screening 1–2 weeks
Peer Review 3–6 weeks
Author Revision 1–3 weeks
Final Decision 1–2 weeks

Total expected review time: 6–10 weeks.

Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.

Possible decisions include:

1. Accept without Revision

The manuscript is accepted in its present form.

2. Minor Revisions Required

Authors must address reviewer comments before acceptance.

3. Major Revisions Required

Substantial revisions are required before reconsideration.

4. Reject

The manuscript does not meet publication standards. Editorial decisions are final.

Revision Policy

Authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewers explaining how comments have been addressed.

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • Reviewed by original reviewers, or

  • Evaluated by the Editorial Board.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified timeline may result in rejection.

Final Acceptance

After acceptance:

Authors may request minor corrections within 10 days of acceptance notification. Major changes after acceptance are not permitted without editorial approval.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding:

  • Manuscript content

  • Author identity

  • Review reports

Information from submitted manuscripts must not be used for personal or professional gain.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest including:

  • Institutional affiliation

  • Financial relationships

  • Personal relationships

  • Academic competition

Reviewers with conflicts of interest will be replaced.

Appeal and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief with justification. The Editorial Board will review appeals and communicate the final decision.

Archiving and Transparency

IJJMC maintains complete records of:

  • Submission history

  • Review reports

  • Editorial decisions

These records are securely archived for academic transparency.

Publication Ethics

IJJMC follows internationally recognized ethical standards consistent with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

The journal requires authors to submit:

  • Declaration of Originality

  • Copyright Transfer Agreement

  • Author Consent Form

Authors must ensure that:

  • The manuscript is original.

  • The work is not under consideration elsewhere.

  • Proper citations are provided.

  • Ethical approvals (if applicable) are obtained.